Semi-Intelligent Designers Theory.

Back home for the summer… done with my undergraduate career.

So, I’ve been thinking – which is dangerous I know – and I think I’ve come across something kinda interesting.

I may have written about the idea before, but I’ve been tossing it around my head for a while now…and I think it really does have some potential.

Ok, so Kansas is now considering the evolution/Intelligent Design "debate."  If they do pass legislation so that ID "theory" has to be taught along-side evolutionary theory, there are a few things that people in the scientific community should do.

Some background, I don’t know of a single Intelligent Designer that is not a believer in a "Perfectly Intelligent Designer" – there may be a few, but the vast majority of the ID supporters in the population are Christian Creationists (and a few that believe it both ways, evolution is the way the Intelligent Designer designed things).

In any case, there is a specific concept of this ID that the vast majority of people who support it would be willing to support.

So, if we are confronted with the case that, by law, ID theory and evolution are taught side-by-side, there is still an in teresting opportunity available.

First thing to do (which is most painful), is to agree, that yes, UD theory is scientific; and to quickly get top biologists, etc. in the fields to write out a few articles in some new journal exploring this theory.

Second thing to do (which is more fun), have these articles focus heavily on the "lack" of "Intelligence" of this Intelligent Designer.

Conclude things like, this Intelligent Designer (or designers) have demonstrated their lack of creativity, by: X,Y, Z.

Or, have conclusions that it is not due to a single Designer, but to a committee of designers.  Use Hume’s argument about how if we see something more and more complex, say, an enormous boat – we don’t  think that some super-human created it, but a lot of normal humans working in conjunction.

So have everyone in the scientific community concluding, that this "ID Theory" should be really called, the "Semi-Intelligent Designers" theory.  So that ID theory that is now taught in schools is completely abhorrent to 99% of ID supporters.  The ones who will want that theory OUT of the class now the MOST are going to be the very people who wanted it in there the most.

In effect, ID theory would be completely co-opted and rendered worthless very quickly.

And, the legislators can’t argue with the scientific conclusions of the theories – they have to teach it as science.  The Discovery Institute will have a cow, but they won’t be able to have any influence.

I’m not 100% convinced that this idea would work as well as I hope it would, but I do think that it has potential.  Also, it should ONLY be considered as a course of action IF (and this is necessary) it becomes law in some area to teach both this ID theory and evolution (or ID in isolation).  Of course it would be called, SIDs theory, which makes me smile.